Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on December 1, 2013 at 10:58am

Yes, I think that 95% of cyclists break the law everyday, in fact I think 100% of them do and I think 100% of drivers do as well.  If, as a rider or driver, you say you never break the law I call bullshit on that. 

The second you break out the 'death machine' language you just lost the argument that I should not think you resent all drivers.  Language like that is what keys people up about smugness and intolerance.  Unless it never bother you to see cyclists all called 'irresponsible entitled jerks' you need to stop doing the exact same thing to car drivers.

Tolerance is not a one way street.

Chi Lowe (<12 parsecs) said:

DUG / Kevin / et. al /

When 'anti-bike' people want to attack cyclists, the conversations starts with how lawless cyclists are.  The implication is that drivers are more lawful road users than cyclists.   Here's a study on the front page of the Trib that eviscerates that position.  Is it really so bad to rejoice?

When anti-car people want to attack drivers, they point out how environmentally destructive cars are, and how they kill people.  The implication is that bicycles do less of all that bad stuff.  Because the data on both sides often a little "gray", some cyclists give the 'driving' side of the car/bike debate the benefit of the doubt.  We should be understanding.  We all know cyclists who break the law.  We're all familiar with the one guy in SF with no brakes who killed an old lady.  But does anyone here think 95% of cyclists break the law every day? 

Don't mistake my resentment at drivers as smugness.  Don't mistake my resentment at mindless drivers as resentment for all drivers.  I understand that people need to live in the world, and that not everything in the world can happen on a bike.  I'm thrilled there is data that demolishes what might be the only valid argument against cycling.  I'd like there to be an end to the debate over which of these two activities is selfish and destructive most of the time.  I'd like the argument that drivers don't respect cyclists because drivers are lawful, and cyclists are not, to die in the giant cesspool it crawled out of. 

Love, Chi_Lowe

notoriousDUG said:

You know exactly what I mean when I say that so stop it you big jerk.

Stop being a bully.

h' 1.0 said:

Yes, because when a driver pulls over to ask for directions, or when a coworker complains about traffic on the expressway, or even when we see someone walking on the sidewalk with their car keys in hand, Chi-Lowe and I and the rest of our militia always make it a point to berate them for their deadly habit.

notoriousDUG said:

When will people realize that the whole militant anti-car thing is more hurtful to the cause of cycling than it is helpful?

Ever wonder why people think cyclists are smug assholes?  You're answer is right here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Altenburg on December 1, 2013 at 11:05am

I'd like to follow your rules for how we should talk about the effects of driving, but I'm unclear on a couple of things - hoping you can clarify.

notoriousDUG said:

First off stop using the 30,000 number when it comes to deaths and start using a percentage; what is the percentage of people who operate a motor vehicle who die?

How should pedestrians and bikers factor into that percentage? What about those who are killed by cars while sitting at home? 

How about over the whole population?  It's a pretty small number in all reality.

Is it valid to group them in other ways as well? For example, is it valid to look at the leading causes of death of children, where car crashes are at the top? Or is that too small a group because it gives too large a number?  

How are cars 'destroying communities?

Does being able to walk to school or to a friend's house count as a vital part of community? 

Yes, they pollute but they are getting cleaner and cleaner.

Does that also mean that if some of us bikers start out really smug, you'll let us off the hook as long as we get less and less smug over the next 50 years?

  The pollution is why it makes sense to encourage people to use other transport more but it does not necessarily make cars evil, or the people who drive them evil.

So, polluting is ok, but talking negatively about those who do so is not. Is my understanding correct?

TIA

Sarcasm aside, I actually think you bring up some good points, DUG, but this whole "smug cyclists are their own worst enemy" stuff is tired. The *vast* majority of drivers, including a lot of people who are otherwise far more considerate than I am, play fast and loose with other people's lives by doing crap like reading their phone, speeding through residential areas, and refusing to actually look around while they're driving. I'm not going to pretend that's an ok status quo just to avoid looking smug.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah D. on December 1, 2013 at 12:51pm

I just want to say that I clapped and laughed and made my dogs jump up while reading this. I <3 the Chainlink. Some of my favorite posters on this thread.

This discussion is a great one, and I hope we can 1) do away with all tropes and 2) engage all sides of the transportation issue in making things safer, more connected, and more human. How? Good question. But we have to agree to stop using polarizing language, except for the occasional appropriate use of "wiener." 

notoriousDUG said:

You can cry, whine, complain and otherwise be a complete wiener about it how things got this way, which does zero good, or you can accept what has happened, where we are and work to improve it.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page